was the depositary of the supreme will of the society. As they were the best judges of the business which ought to be done by the executive department, and consequently of the number necessary from time to time for doing it, he wished the number might not be fixed, but that the legislature should be at liberty to appoint one or more as experience might dictate."

Mr. WILSON preferred a single magistrate, as giving most energy, dispatch, and responsibility to the office. He did not consider the prerogatives of the British monarch as a proper guide in defining the executive powers. Some of these prerogatives were of a legislative nature. Among others, that of war and peace, etc. The only powers he considered strictly executive were those of executing the laws and appointing officers, not appertaining to and appointed by the Legislature. Mr. GERRY favored the policy of annexing a Council to the executive, in order to give weight and inspire confidence. Mr. RANDOLPH strenuously opposed a unity in the executive magistracy. He regarded it as the fetus of monarchy. We had he said no motive to be governed by the British government as our prototype. He did not mean, however, to throw censure on that excellent fabric. If we were in a situation to copy it, he did not know that he should be opposed to it; but the fixed genius of the people of America required a different form of government. He could not see why the great requisites for the executive department, vigor, despatch, and responsibility, could not be found in three men, as well as in one man. The Executive ought to be independent. It ought, therefore, in order to support its independence to consist of more than

one.

Mr. WILSON said that unity in the Executive, instead of being the fetus of monarchy, would be the best safeguard against tyranny. He repeated that he was not governed by the British model, which was inapplicable to the situation of this country; the extent of which was so great, and the 'manners so republican, that nothing but a great confederated republic would do for it.

Mr. Wilson's motion for a single magistrate was postponed by common consent, the committee seeming unprepared for any decision on it; and the first part of the clause agreed to, viz.,' that a National Executive be instituted.'

Mr. MADISON thought it would be proper, before a choice should be made between a unity and a plurality in the Execu

tive, to fix the extent of the executive authority; that as certain powers were in their nature executive, and must be given to that department whether administered by one or.' more persons, a definition of their extent would assist the judgment in determining how far they might be safely entrusted to a single officer. He accordingly moved that so much of the clause before the committee as related to the powers of the Executive should be struck out, and that after the words "that a National Executive ought to be instituted' there be inserted the words following, viz., with power to carryinto effect the national laws, to appoint to offices in cases not otherwise provided for, [and to execute such other powers not Legislative nor Judiciary in their nature, as may from time to time be delegated by the national Legislature.]'1

The next clause in Resolution 7, relating to the mode of appointing, and the duration of, the Executive, being under consideration,

Mr. WILSON said he was almost unwilling to declare the mode which he wished to take place, being apprehensive that it might appear chimerical. He would say, however, at least that in theory he was for an election by the people. Experience, particularly in New York and Massachusetts, shewed that an election of the first magistrate by the people at large, was both a convenient and successful mode. The objects of choice in such cases must be persons whose merits have general notoriety.

Mr. SHERMAN was for the appointment by the Legislature, ( and for making him absolutely dependent on that body, as it was the will of that which was to be executed. An independence of the Executive on the Supreme Legislature, was in his opinion the very essence of tyranny, if there was any such thing.

Mr. WILSON moves that the blank for the term of duration should be filled with three years, observing at the same time that he preferred this short period, on the supposition that a re-eligibility would be provided for.

Mr. PINCKNEY moves for seven years.

Mr. SHERMAN was for three years, and against the doctrine of rotation, as throwing out of office the men best qualified to execute its duties.

Mr. MASON was for seven years at least, and for prohibiting a re-eligibility as the best expedient both for preventing the

1 The motion was carried, with the bracketed words struck out.

effect of a false complaisance on the side of the Legislature towards unfit characters; and a temptation on the side of the Executive to intrigue with the Legislature for a re-appointment.

Mr. BEDFORD [Del.] was strongly opposed to so long a term as seven years. He begged the committee to consider what the situation of the country would be, in case the first magistrate should be saddled on it for such a period and it should be found on trial that he did not possess the qualifications ascribed to him, or should lose them after his appointment. An impeachment he said would be no cure for this evil, as an impeachment would reach misfeasance only, not incapacity. He was for a triennial election, and for an ineligibility after a period of nine years.

On the question for seven years,

Mass. divided. Conn. no. N. Y. ay. N. J. ay. Penn. ay. Del. ay. Va. ay. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no. There being 5 ays, 4 noes, I divided, a question was asked whether a majority had voted in the affirmative? The President decided that it was an affirmative vote.

(d) Safety and the Senate.

7 June. IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (Madison) Mr. DICKINSON [Del.] now moved that the members of the second branch [of the Legislature] ought to be chosen by the individual legislatures'.

Mr. SHERMAN seconded the motion; observing that the particular States would thus become interested in supporting the national government, and that a due harmony between the two governments would be maintained. He admitted that the two ought to have separate and distinct jurisdictions, but that they ought to have a mutual interest in supporting each other.

Mr. PINCKNEY. If the small States should be allowed one Senator only, the number will be too great, there will be 80 at least.

Mr. DICKINSON had two reasons for his motion. 1. Because the sense of the States would be better collected through their governments, than immediately from the people at large. 2. Because he wished the Senate to consist of the most distinguished characters, distinguished for their rank in life and their weight of property, and bearing as strong a likeness to the British House of Lords as possible; and he

thought such characters more likely to be selected by the State Legislatures than in any other mode. The greatness of the number was no objection with him. He hoped there would be 80, and twice 80 of them. If their number should be small the popular branch could not be balanced by them. The legislature of a numerous people ought to be a numerous body.

Mr. WILLIAMSON [N. C.] preferred a small number of Senators, but wished that each State should have at least one. He suggested 25 as a convenient number. The different modes of representation in the different branches will serve as a mutual check.

Mr. BUTLER was anxious to know the ratio of representation before he gave any opinion.

Mr. WILSON. If we are to establish a national government, that government ought to flow from the people at large. If one branch of it should be chosen by the Legislatures, and the other by the people, the two branches will rest on different foundations, and dissensions will naturally arise between them. He wished the Senate to be elected by the people as well as the other branch, and the people might be divided into proper districts for the purpose, and he moved to postpone the motion of Mr. Dickinson, in order to take up one of that import.

Mr. MORRIS [Penn.] seconded him.

Mr. READ [Del.] proposed that the Senate should be appointed by the Executive Magistrate out of a proper number of persons to be nominated by the individual legislatures'. He said he thought it his duty to speak his mind frankly. Gentlemen he hoped would not be alarmed at the idea. Nothing short of this approach towards a proper model of government would answer the purpose, and he thought it best to come directly to the point at once. His proposition was not seconded nor supported.

Mr. MADISON. If the motion [of Mr. Dickinson] should be agreed to, we must either depart from the doctrine of proportional representation or admit into the Senate a very large number of members. The first is inadmissible, being evidently unjust. The second is inexpedient. The use of the Senate is. to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch. Enlarge their number, and you communicate to them the vices

+

which they are meant to correct. He differed from Mr. D. who thought that the additional number would give additional weight to the body. On the contrary, it appeared to him that their weight would be in an inverse ratio to their numbers. The example of the Roman Tribunes was applicable. They lost their influence and power, in proportion as their number was augmented. The reason seemed to be obvious: they were appointed to take care of the popular interests and pretensions at Rome, because the people by reason of their numbers could not act in concert, and were liable to fall into factions among themselves, and to become a prey to their aristocratic adversaries. The more the representatives of the fpeople, therefore, were multiplied, the more they partook of the infirmities of their constituents, the more liable they became to be divided among themselves either from their own indiscretions or the artifices of the opposite faction, and of course the less capable of fulfilling their trust. When the weight of a set of men depends merely on their personal characters, the greater the number the greater the weight. When it depends on the degree of political authority lodged in them, the smaller the number the greater the weight. These considerations might perhaps be combined in the intended Senate; but the latter was the material one.

Mr. GERRY. Four modes of appointing the Senate have been mentioned. 1. By the first branch of the National Legislature. This would create a dependence contrary to the end proposed. 2. By the National Executive. This is a stride towards monarchy that few will think of. 3. By the people. The people have two great interests, the landed interest, and the commercial, including the stockholders. To draw both branches from the people will leave no security to the latter interest; the people being chiefly composed of the landed interest, and erroneously supposing that the other interests are adverse to it. 4. By the individual legislatures. The elections being carried thro' this refinement, will be most likely to provide some check in favor of the commercial interest against the landed; without which oppression will take place, and no free Government can last long where that is the case. He was therefore in favor of this last.

Mr. DICKINSON.* The preservation of the States in a certain *It will throw light on this discussion to remark that an election by the State Legislatures involved a surrender of the principle insisted